FILTERS
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Diversity in Employment
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Enforcement of Non-Discrimination Laws
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
- Race and National Origin Discrimination
- Religious Discrimination & Accommodation
- Retaliation
- Sex Discrimination
- Veterans Discrimination
- Academic Freedom & Employee Speech
- Background Checks & Employee Verification
- Collective Bargaining
- Diversity in Employment
- Employee Benefits
- Employee Discipline & Due Process
- Employee Sexual Misconduct
- Employment of Foreign Nationals
- Employment Separation, RIFs, ERIPs & Retrenchment
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees
- Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Intellectual Property
- Reproductive Health Issues
- Research
- Retaliation
- Tenure
- Veterans & Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Diversity in the General Counsel’s Office
- Ethical Obligations of Higher Education Lawyers
- Evaluation of Operations & Staff in the General Counsel’s Office
- External Counsel
- Law Office Management
- Law Office Technology
- Law Office Training
- Roles & Responsibilities of the General Counsel
- Wellness & Stress Management
- Academic Performance and Misconduct
- Admissions
- Distressed & Suicidal Students
- Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans
- Hazing
- Internships, Externships, & Clinical Work
- Student Athlete Issues
- Student Conduct
- Student Housing
- Student Organizations
- Student Speech & Campus Unrest
- Title IX & Student Sexual Misconduct
- Uncategorized
Latest Cases & Developments
Date:
Doe v. The Trustees of Columbia University (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 27, 2026) (unpub.)
Opinion and Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss and Vacating University’s Sanctions. Plaintiffs, 22 students who attend Columbia University, challenged the sanctions imposed on them by the university following the April 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall, alleging that the disciplinary determinations against them were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of New York law. The court denied the university’s motion to dismiss, finding that the university (1) improperly inferred guilt from mere presence at the occupation when it needed evidence of each student’s individual conduct; and (2) improperly relied on information contained in the students’ arrest records, which was placed under seal, and therefore, under New York Law, required to be treated as a legal nullity and could not be used to impose adverse consequences. The court found that because the arrest information was the only evidence placing the students inside Hamilton Hall, and the university was unable to produce any other proof of their individual conduct, the disciplinary findings were unsupported by admissible evidence. Accordingly, the court vacated the disciplinary sanctions and remanded the matter to the university, while clarifying that the university may initiate new disciplinary actions based on permissible evidence.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | First Amendment & Free Speech | Student Conduct | Student Speech & Campus Unrest | StudentsDate:
O’Keefe v. Lehigh Univ. (3rd Cir. Jan. 12, 2024)
Opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of the University. Plaintiff, a former student at Lehigh University, brought assault and battery claims against two University police officers and contract claims against the University after he was arrested, breathalyzed, and expelled for public drunkenness. In affirming summary judgment in favor of the officers, the Third Circuit held that the breath test was reasonable, noting that witnesses observed plaintiff “stumbling around and falling after almost being hit by a car,” and that the level of force used to administer the test was not unreasonable given “an admittedly uncooperative subject.” In affirming summary judgment in favor of the University on his contract claim, the court held that (1) pointed questioning of a witness by an associate dean of students about whether plaintiff appeared drunk did not raise a question of fundamental unfairness; (2) lack of a separate credibility determination in the hearing panel’s evaluation of information presented by eyewitnesses did not raise an issue of fundamental fairness, particularly as University policy does not require a record of a specific credibility determination; and (3) the University did not impermissibly withhold exculpatory evidence when it did not produce for the hearing panel the initial incident report when its contents were presented in a summary provided to the panel nor when it did not produce body camera footage that was not in its possession.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Student Conduct | StudentsDate:
R.W. v. Columbia Basin Coll. (E.D. Wash. Aug. 30, 2023)
Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Columbia Basin College (CBC) who had accommodations for epilepsy and back pain, was hospitalized for four days in 2017 after he reported graphic, intrusive homicidal ideation about three of his instructors. CBC found him responsible for violating its policy on Abusive Conduct, sanctioned him, and imposed parameters on his return, including monthly sessions with an independent mental health counselor and consent to permit a CBC conduct official to speak with the counselor. Plaintiff brought disability discrimination claims against CBC and multiple officials. After a jury found for defendants, plaintiff renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law. In denying the motion, the court found evidence presented at trial from which the jury could have concluded that (1) plaintiff’s expressions of homicidal ideation resulted not from depression, but from frustration with low grades, and (2) he was not a qualified individual because his reported ideation was specific enough that his primary physician and a state-certified Designated Crisis Responder thought he might have begun active planning. The court further rejected his claim that the requirement of independent counseling was an impermissible surcharge, finding no evidence that CBC permitted other students with similar conduct violations to reenroll without incurring such an expense.
Topics:
Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Student Conduct | StudentsDate:
R.W. v. Columbia Basin Coll. (9th Cir. Aug. 14, 2023)
Opinion affirming-in-part and dismissing-in-part on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff, a former nursing student at Columbia Basin College (CBC), brought constitutional claims against CBC and multiple officials after they learned he had sought medical treatment for homicidal thoughts about three instructors, terminated him from the program, barred him from campus, and entered failing grades for his coursework then in progress. The district court permitted plaintiff to proceed against the officials under Ex parte Young for injunctive relief for reinstatement in the nursing program and expungement of his failing grades. In affirming on interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit held plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation of federal law to be permitted to proceed because CBC’s letter imposing the sanctions did not specify a time limit and because there was a possibility that CBC could reinstate the sanctions even though it had changed its internal procedures for issuing sanctions. It dismissed several other issues, however, as improper for resolution on interlocutory appeal.
Topics:
Constitutional Issues | Due Process | Student Conduct | StudentsDate:
Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. (4th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a student at Virginia Tech, sued the University and numerous officials after he was suspended for a year and a half for domestic violence. The district court dismissed his claims, finding he had not alleged a cognizable liberty or property interest in his continuing education. The Fourth Circuit, however, assumed such an interest and affirmed instead on the grounds that he failed to allege he was deprived of sufficient process. In this, it held that it was sufficient that the University notified him of the charges against him one week after he received its completed investigative report, but two months prior to the hearing that resulted in his suspension. His claim that he was not permitted to interview his witnesses during the hearing because they were all away for the summer failed because he had not alleged that they were unable to provide testimony by phone or video or that he sought to delay the hearing until they could attend. Finally, the court held that his assertion that his accuser suggested for the first time in her testimony at the hearing that he had worked to keep her away from her family and friends was not sufficient to allege a due process violation, noting that it has not held that university students have a right to advance notice of the evidence to be presented against them.
Topics:
Student Conduct | Students | Title IX & Student Sexual MisconductDate:
Malhotra v. Univ. of Ill. At Urbana-Champaign (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023)
Opinion affirming dismissal. Plaintiff, a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in January 2021, brought due process claims against multiple University officials after he was suspended for two semesters for being present at a party at his fraternity house in violation of COVID restrictions. In affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit held that he failed to allege a constitutionally protected property right in continued enrollment because he failed to allege facts sufficient to suggest the existence of an express or implied contract with the University to suspend him only for good cause or to follow its own procedures. It dismissed his claim for monetary damages against the officials in their individual capacities, finding his assertion that future disclosures of his disciplinary record “may” affect his career prospects was speculative.
Topics:
Campus Police, Safety, & Crisis Management | Coronavirus | Student Conduct | Students
NACUA Annual Conference
Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.